Discovery Institute: Already Assailing Ardi

Creation Science Research

WHEN we wrote about “Ardi” — Pre-Lucy Hominid Fossil Found, as did everyone else in the world, we knew that the creationists would soon favor us with their predictable efforts to hold back the tide. We didn’t have long to wait.

At the blog of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids) we find the expected creationist response to Ardi. It’s by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist: Bones of “Ardi,” New Human Evolution Fossil, “Crushed Nearly to Smithereens”. Here’s a bit of what Casey says, with bold font added by us:

Another new alleged missing link has been found, if you consider something discovered in the early 1990’s new. This fossil seems to have spent almost as much time under the microscope at Berkeley as it did in the ground in Ethiopia, when it was first buried about 4.4 million years ago.

What’s Casey complaining about? This fossil was studied for a long time before the scientists’ findings were published. To the rational world, such diligence is praiseworthy. But to Casey that “delay” means what — the fossil isn’t a new discovery? That’s his reaction? Let’s read on:

Why did it take over 15 years for the reports on this fossil to finally be published, besides the fact that it allowed more time for planning the now-customary PR campaign?

This isn’t the worst we’ve seen from the Discoveroids, but it’s definitely low-grade behavior. Well, we’re dealing with creationists, so we shouldn’t expect anything better. Hey, look at it this way — their instant reversion to slime-slinging is a good indication of institutional desperation.

We continue:

A 2002 article in Science explains exactly why: the bones were so brittle, “squished,” “chalky” and “erod[ed]” when cleaned such that many of the bone fragments had to be “reconstruct[ed]” — and that took a long time.

Ah, we see where Casey’s going. He’s “subtly” suggesting that it took 15 years for a team of maniacal “Darwinists” to turn a mess of fragments into a fake fossil. After that feeble feint, he tries to create doubt that Ardi was bipedal:

Of course a key feature in demonstrating that an organism was bipedal is the precise shape of its pelvis.

Then Casey mines a few quotes about the difficulties the researchers encountered, gleefully spinning them for his creationist fans, and says:

Claims of bipedalism often depend upon precise measurements of the angles of key bones such as the pelvis, femur, and knee-bones. But if these bones were discovered in such a crushed, squished, etc. form, determining the precise contours of these bones might become a highly subjective exercise. I’m sure they spent a lot of time on their reconstructions (and it certainly sounds like they did) but at the end of the day, it’s difficult to make solid claims about extremely unsolid bones.

What’s the point of Casey’s babbling? Ardi exists. It’s an early hominid — earlier than Lucy. It reveals another piece of the evolutionary puzzle. Those who found the fossil worked long and hard to understand it — and then Casey worked for 20 minutes to nitpick their efforts.

Hey Casey, are you proud of your work today?

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article